One has to wonder sometimes what lurks behind corporate websites and their banner proclamations. For example, none other than Catherine Fitts found this one, and passed it along, and when you read it, you'll know why:
Now, as you might imagine, what piqued our interest in this find was the reference to "precision fires", which the website is maintaining is all about precision guided ordnance:
Lockheed Martin’s Camden Operations facility is a manufacturing, final assembly, test and storage operation for Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control (MFC) programs. Located in the Highland Industrial Park in Camden, Arkansas, it occupies a combined manufacturing and support function floor space exceeding 1.9 million square feet spread out over more than 1,800 acres of land. Approximately 650 employees work in the facility’s manufacturing and support buildings.
Established in 1978 as the home of the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) production program, Camden Operations is today Lockheed Martin’s Precision Fires operations center of excellence. It continues to produce the MLRS launcher and family of munitions, which includes the Guided MLRS Unitary Rocket. It is home to the Tactical Missile System (TACMS) missile, and the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launcher, which fires both MLRS rockets and TACMS missiles. The Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) hit-to-kill air defense missile is also manufactured here. All of these systems are combat-proven.
There you have it: it's about nothing more or less than precision fire control and guidance systems for an array of guided missiles. Nothing to see here, move along.
But if you're a regular reader here, you know I cannot resist crawling to the end of the twig of High Octane Speculation, where the weight of the speculation far exceeds the load bearing capacity of the twig, and today is certainly a prime example of it, for I cannot help but think there's "more" lurking behind this "precision fires" thing than meets the eye. My rule of thumb is: if it's the government saying it, it's lying, and if it's a major defense corporation saying it, it's really lying. And perhaps, as is my wont when indulging in my high octane speculations, I parse the words too closely, but I cannot help but notice the careful choice of words here: "precision fires", and not "precision fire control systems", which is the explanation we're given at the website in the main text of the article, and indeed, given the ordnance involved, precision fire control systems makes eminent sense.
My context for this high octane speculation were all of the anomalous things (and pictures) that were noticed in the wake of the fires in California: houses that burnt to the ground, cars with wheel rims melted, bridges whose metal-work, guard rails, and rebar were twisted beyond recognition, while nearby shrubbery and trees were seemingly not affected at all, the sudden appearance of the military in some cases after the fires, and now, pace recent developments, the involvement of the Department of Defense in planning for the next disasters in that state. Like many others, I've speculated that perhaps these fires were set by arsonists, but arsonists with a variety of exotic "toys" and technologies to play with, from directed energy weapons, microwaves, and I've even entertained the idea that the power grid itself was used as a broadcast antenna in to start fires in some instances.
So I have to wonder if this language referring to "precision fires" and not "precision fire control systems" might be doing a bit of double duty, and if in fact, these sophisticated fire control systems are about much more than standard guided missiles, and if some other technology is implied as well, the kind of technology that can burn houses to the ground, melt wheel rims on cars, twist guard rails and rebar on bridges and roads, and so on.
Though my high octane speculation on the end of the twig far exceeds the evidence, it's that suggestive ambiguity in the wording of the headline that has me wondering, and I'm willing to say that I think it probably does. We may, in fact, be looking at a backhanded admission of the existence of catastrophe capitalism.
See you on the flip side...